In the latest acting biz news, I had new headshots taken Tuesday. That's another step on the road to landing decent representation. I went with a 3-look session aiming for a couple of commercial, relaxed and fun looks and another more serious and theatrical look. I generally hate headshot sessions, but I'm not sure why because I usually end up having a good time. I've also been attending discussion groups with industry people and learning a lot.
It seems as though there are catch-22's around every actor's bend. There's the SAG catch...you can't join unless you work SAG, and it's hard to get SAG work without already being a member. Then there's the agent catch...agents want to represent people with credits, but it's harder to get decent credits without an agent. I've already handled the first one, but the second one awaits. I've got credits, but I'm probably still considered "developmental". However, I've been focusing more on learning to work the business and make it work for me. So, I'm sure it will all come in time.
In more mundane news, I got a job that required pre-employment drug testing, a physical and a background check. Let me tell you that's a barrel of fun, but it only took a couple of hours to accomplish...so not too bad. It'll be interesting to see how it works out. I'm hoping to get enough hours to be productive, but not so many as to interfere with upcoming classes, etc. Until I'm pulling in acting paychecks again, however, it must be done. I read another actor's outlook on day jobs. He basically said not to knock that work, because it enables you to stay here and further your other pursuits. That's true. My last regular day job didn't always agree with me, but it definitely helped me to get where I am. This new job has the potential to be entertaining as it involves being out and working with people rather than just sitting at a desk all day.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Scary business
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal today about the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo et al v. City of New London. At issue in this case, was whether or not a municipality could seize property from private citizens in order to build a privately owned and operated office complex. Governments have authority under "eminent domain" laws to seize land, in return for what they call "just compensation", for public use like roads and schools.
In the past few years, more and more politicians have been twisting this concept to make "public use" include anything that will generate more tax revenue than what is currently on the land. Now, the Supreme Court has given carte blanche to that practice. Say some MEGARetailer or big time development company likes the land your house is on, but you don't feel like uprooting your family to move from the house your father built just because someone offered you money. Does that MEGARetailer or development company accept your answer? Why should they? Now, they go to the City Council or whatever government is responsible for your little piece of America, and they make some donations to campaign funds, offer a few vacations, maybe just take a good old boy to a ballgame and buy the beer. Next thing you know, the City Council orders you to sell your land at "market price" to the city or county. Guess who determines "market price". Yep. Once they force you out, they often just give the land to this MEGARetailer or development company in return for the supposed future tax revenues generated by whatever development they're dropping on your former little piece of America.
There was a case in Georgia not too long ago in which a couple had already signed a contract to sell their land to someone else at a price (let's say 2 million) when the local municipality came along and decided they wanted it for a park. This municipality decided the "market price" of the property was some far lesser value (let's say 750 thousand). Because of a massive publicity campaign which highlighted this blatant thievery, the municipality eventually dropped their pursuit of the property.
How can a private citizen compete with these big developers in terms of influence on the politicians who make these decisions? Justice O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "The beneficiaries [of this ruling] are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." The competition is not in public hearings. It's in the back room dealings, bribes and campaign contributions that politicians (good and bad) accept all the time. The private citizen cannot withstand such an assault. I suppose we have the right to pursue happiness as long as our happiness does not live where their MEGAStore is going.
Property rights are one of the central pillars of our freedom, and this ruling cuts us off at the knees. While people talk all the time about Patriot Act this and Patriot Act that, these large corporations and development companies are walking out the back door with our homes. We all better pay attention to what is going on in our communities.
The article
In the past few years, more and more politicians have been twisting this concept to make "public use" include anything that will generate more tax revenue than what is currently on the land. Now, the Supreme Court has given carte blanche to that practice. Say some MEGARetailer or big time development company likes the land your house is on, but you don't feel like uprooting your family to move from the house your father built just because someone offered you money. Does that MEGARetailer or development company accept your answer? Why should they? Now, they go to the City Council or whatever government is responsible for your little piece of America, and they make some donations to campaign funds, offer a few vacations, maybe just take a good old boy to a ballgame and buy the beer. Next thing you know, the City Council orders you to sell your land at "market price" to the city or county. Guess who determines "market price". Yep. Once they force you out, they often just give the land to this MEGARetailer or development company in return for the supposed future tax revenues generated by whatever development they're dropping on your former little piece of America.
There was a case in Georgia not too long ago in which a couple had already signed a contract to sell their land to someone else at a price (let's say 2 million) when the local municipality came along and decided they wanted it for a park. This municipality decided the "market price" of the property was some far lesser value (let's say 750 thousand). Because of a massive publicity campaign which highlighted this blatant thievery, the municipality eventually dropped their pursuit of the property.
How can a private citizen compete with these big developers in terms of influence on the politicians who make these decisions? Justice O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "The beneficiaries [of this ruling] are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." The competition is not in public hearings. It's in the back room dealings, bribes and campaign contributions that politicians (good and bad) accept all the time. The private citizen cannot withstand such an assault. I suppose we have the right to pursue happiness as long as our happiness does not live where their MEGAStore is going.
Property rights are one of the central pillars of our freedom, and this ruling cuts us off at the knees. While people talk all the time about Patriot Act this and Patriot Act that, these large corporations and development companies are walking out the back door with our homes. We all better pay attention to what is going on in our communities.
The article
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The new bias
Important stuff first...
My meeting with a potential acting coach went very well. I will be joining her for a class in August and going from there. It is an intensive track, which I like, with focused work for several hours at a time and required rehearsal time outside class with mates. I moved my headshot appointment back a week to better allow me to ponder ideas of "type" and make sure I have the wardrobe in place. That was a source of some concern as we left so much behind for the move. We did a little bargain shopping and found a nice suit and tie and a couple of shirts. One of those shirts can now claim the title of "Priciest Single Item of Clothing I've Ever Purchased", and I got it from a consignment place. So, just imagine... Well, it's a great shirt and, knowing me, I'll wear it for the next 10 years. That lessens the blow to my thrifty reputation.
Now, the tedious...
I encountered my first personal bit of anti-actor bias in the world of noncreativity. One of my temp agencies called with a month-long job that was just data entry/spreadsheet stuff. It sounded like minimum brain damage commensurate with the low pay. I said "ok", and they submitted me to the client. The next day, I got a phone call from someone at the agency I hadn't really spoken with before. They said the client was very interested in me but was afraid that I wouldn't work for the month because I am an actor. I chatted with the agency a bit saying that I wasn't really auditioning this month, and that if I said I would do the job, then I would do it. The agency seemed confident that I was a responsible person, and offered to arrange a meeting so the client could actually meet and talk to me. I didn't get the meeting, and I didn't get the job.
Consider, any company employing a temp knows that any temp, no matter what their pursuits, could call in at any time and say they don't want to be on this job and leave. That's the whole thing with a temp. It's temporary. For that matter, any full-time employee of theirs could come back from lunch, drop a resignation note on their desk and leave. How many of their full-time employees only want to work there for the rest of their lives? That's employment at will. So, what do they have to go on besides one of these people saying they'll do the job for a period of time and a resume that supports these assertions and capabilities? Nothing. So, what's the difference between me and these others? I'm an actor. You supply the logic because I cannot find it. Someone must've really hurt their feelings at some point.
I have a new prospect that I am following up on this afternoon. If it works out, I won't have to deal with calling the temps for work for a while. Nice.
My meeting with a potential acting coach went very well. I will be joining her for a class in August and going from there. It is an intensive track, which I like, with focused work for several hours at a time and required rehearsal time outside class with mates. I moved my headshot appointment back a week to better allow me to ponder ideas of "type" and make sure I have the wardrobe in place. That was a source of some concern as we left so much behind for the move. We did a little bargain shopping and found a nice suit and tie and a couple of shirts. One of those shirts can now claim the title of "Priciest Single Item of Clothing I've Ever Purchased", and I got it from a consignment place. So, just imagine... Well, it's a great shirt and, knowing me, I'll wear it for the next 10 years. That lessens the blow to my thrifty reputation.
Now, the tedious...
I encountered my first personal bit of anti-actor bias in the world of noncreativity. One of my temp agencies called with a month-long job that was just data entry/spreadsheet stuff. It sounded like minimum brain damage commensurate with the low pay. I said "ok", and they submitted me to the client. The next day, I got a phone call from someone at the agency I hadn't really spoken with before. They said the client was very interested in me but was afraid that I wouldn't work for the month because I am an actor. I chatted with the agency a bit saying that I wasn't really auditioning this month, and that if I said I would do the job, then I would do it. The agency seemed confident that I was a responsible person, and offered to arrange a meeting so the client could actually meet and talk to me. I didn't get the meeting, and I didn't get the job.
Consider, any company employing a temp knows that any temp, no matter what their pursuits, could call in at any time and say they don't want to be on this job and leave. That's the whole thing with a temp. It's temporary. For that matter, any full-time employee of theirs could come back from lunch, drop a resignation note on their desk and leave. How many of their full-time employees only want to work there for the rest of their lives? That's employment at will. So, what do they have to go on besides one of these people saying they'll do the job for a period of time and a resume that supports these assertions and capabilities? Nothing. So, what's the difference between me and these others? I'm an actor. You supply the logic because I cannot find it. Someone must've really hurt their feelings at some point.
I have a new prospect that I am following up on this afternoon. If it works out, I won't have to deal with calling the temps for work for a while. Nice.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Shake, Bake, and Flakes
The first noticeable earthquake since we've been here occurred today. It wasn't anything dramatic, but it's a little strange to feel your floor dancing under you. For the last couple of weeks, I've been joining a small contingent of musicians and friends for beach volleyball at Manhattan Beach. We've been to Venice Beach a couple of times, and it really doesn't even compare to Manhattan Beach. Guess I don't understand that attraction some have to Venice. It was a gorgeous day. I'm generally not a beachy person, choosing the hills and forests instead, but I do love beach volleyball. With the weather today, the good times, and the great setting, I actually considered that I might like to live at the beach some day.
We're about to embark on the treacherous waters of car registration. California is supposed to have tougher emissions laws, which could mean expensive repairs to our cars. I am having nightmares about it, but I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised --- overwhelmingly overjoyed would be good.
One of the things people seem to say about Los Angeles is that everyone is so fake. While I feel quite certain that a sizeable number of people are like that, so far we've managed to meet a lot of good folks who seem genuine. (And all the jaded will say, "That's because you're a relative unknown from whom people don't want something...yet.").
Has anyone seen this trashy E! show called "Fight for Fame" or something like that? Basically, four people each week "compete" to win a 1 year contract with an agency. Each week, there's an improv scene component. Wow. Here are a few of the gems from some of the "actors". "She was giving me nothing." "I wasn't going to let her steal my opportunity." "I could tell she was so nervous. What am I supposed to do with that?" I watched one actress go from trying to get a married man to "give me a chance" to [when he basically said, "Ok, let's go right here and now"] "I can't do this, you're married."
What did the agents say? "It didn't seem like they were listening to each other."
Ok. If you haven't already, see also "My partner didn't give me anything"
and "On improv and awareness"
We're about to embark on the treacherous waters of car registration. California is supposed to have tougher emissions laws, which could mean expensive repairs to our cars. I am having nightmares about it, but I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised --- overwhelmingly overjoyed would be good.
One of the things people seem to say about Los Angeles is that everyone is so fake. While I feel quite certain that a sizeable number of people are like that, so far we've managed to meet a lot of good folks who seem genuine. (And all the jaded will say, "That's because you're a relative unknown from whom people don't want something...yet.").
Has anyone seen this trashy E! show called "Fight for Fame" or something like that? Basically, four people each week "compete" to win a 1 year contract with an agency. Each week, there's an improv scene component. Wow. Here are a few of the gems from some of the "actors". "She was giving me nothing." "I wasn't going to let her steal my opportunity." "I could tell she was so nervous. What am I supposed to do with that?" I watched one actress go from trying to get a married man to "give me a chance" to [when he basically said, "Ok, let's go right here and now"] "I can't do this, you're married."
What did the agents say? "It didn't seem like they were listening to each other."
Ok. If you haven't already, see also "My partner didn't give me anything"
and "On improv and awareness"
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Underway
After finally working last week at one of the studios, I've spent some time this week doing some housekeeping for the acting side of life. I've got an appointment with my headshot photographer, with an acting coach who was recommended to me, and with a local actors' support network. The acting coach requested that I bring a scene from a previous or upcoming audition for our meeting. Of course, after the move and all that, I have no idea where my file of past audition sides is buried. Let that be a lesson to all of us, keep up with those. So, I picked a scene from a TV show that includes a character that I believe fits me. Even though it's not something I was actually submitted for, I think it should give the instructor some information about where I am.
On another topic, I've hit a rough poker streak. It's so strange, but occasionally a player can fall into a rut of getting consistently beaten on great hands. Getting beaten while playing a good hand usually means you lose more money. It's tough to keep your mind together when you're losing to 7-3 off suit. You just have to maintain your game and not freak out. So, I'm down this week, but still up overall.
On another topic, I've hit a rough poker streak. It's so strange, but occasionally a player can fall into a rut of getting consistently beaten on great hands. Getting beaten while playing a good hand usually means you lose more money. It's tough to keep your mind together when you're losing to 7-3 off suit. You just have to maintain your game and not freak out. So, I'm down this week, but still up overall.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)